Skip to comments.

Posted on 12/17/2001 5:01:17 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer

Many Bill Clinton supporters have contended that he will be recognized as one of our greatest presidents. A few have responded to his critics' charges that he will go down in history as one of the worst presidents by saying, "He is the best president we have ever had."
    Both of these evaluations are emotion-based, myopic responses and not objective attempts to examine his presidential accomplishments and failures. Real presidential legacies are based on the test of time. Long after Clinton's staunchest apologists and bitterest enemies are gone, the historians will have the last word.
    As with all former presidents, the question that causes Clinton concern is how historians will evaluate his presidency, not in just a few years, but in 2041 or 2051 and beyond.
    While history may not be written the same way in the middle of the century, one can review how historians describe the legacies of past presidents as major indicators of how Clinton may be viewed in the future.
    Since Clinton supporters identify economic growth and prosperity as his single greatest achievement, how historians now view presidential greatness in light of booming economies 40 or 50 years ago and earlier may provide some illuminating clues.
    Just over 40 years ago, President Dwight D. Eisenhower served two terms during the 1950s economic boom. From 1945-60, the Gross National Product grew by 250 percent, unemployment was 5 percent or less, inflation was 3 percent or less per year, job creation and earning power exploded. There were over 4,000 corporate mergers.
    Apparently, this economic boom did not contribute much to Eisenhower's legacy. In several recent American history texts, he is not given a single line crediting him for the economic prosperity in the 1950s. A common refrain on Eisenhower's presidency by historians is that he "quietly presided over period of peace and unprecedented prosperity. No hint of scandal, either." Even though he did have other significant accomplishments, Eisenhower is not ranked among the top 10 presidents.
    After the recession of 1921-22, the 1920s decade was one of the longest and most robust periods of economic growth and prosperity in modern history. The new consumer-oriented economy parallels and rivals the economy of the 1990s. Manufacturing output rose by more than 60 percent, per-capita income grew more than 30 percent, inflation was negligible and the stock market grew to unprecedented levels. This remarkable economy contributed little to the legacies of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge.
    Historians sum up the Harding presidency by saying, "Whatever his personal shortcomings, he presided over a period of economic growth." Historians rank Harding and Coolidge among the worst presidents, especially Harding.
    Two decades after the Civil War, the United States was experiencing its greatest economic growth of all time. New technologies emerged which were even more significant than the 1990s technologies are today. The steel, railroad, oil, auto and electricity industries along with innovative production methods forever transformed the lives of the American people. However, these late 19th century booming economies did little to enhance the legacies of Presidents U.S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James Garfield, Grover Cleveland and William McKinley. Most of these presidents are ranked near the bottom.
    Based on these historical precedents, it is highly unlikely that historians will consider the booming 1990s economy a major contribution to Clinton's legacy. Objective historians know that great economies are the result of a multiplicity of factors interacting over time and that presidents have little or no control over most of these factors.
    Unfortunately, if current history texts are indicators, multiple scandals, White House sexual encounters, impeachment, disbarment, payment-for-pardons, greed and making a less than graceful exit from office will surely be included in some detail. During the Clinton presidency, there were no great foreign policy and domestic challenges with corresponding achievements to offset these negatives. A booming economy alone will not secure him a place among the great presidents, and his negatives will probably considerably lower his ranking among past presidents.
    While it is far too soon to evaluate his presidential legacy, a typical line in 2051 on the Clinton presidency may read, "He presided over a period of tremendous prosperity and peace with no great challenges, but he wasted his considerable political talents by engaging in behaviors which were not consistent with presidential greatness."
    The great presidents do not appear on Mount Rushmore simply because economic conditions were very good during their presidencies.

Tom Howard is chairman of the Department of History and Social Science at Harding University at Searcy.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.